The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-12
THE RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Hon. Byron K. Elliott, Chief jnstics.
The following opinions were rendered Jan. IL:
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE -ExEMPTIoN-wIT-
NESS.
1882 Louisa Taylor vs. Lawrence Deuster
berg, administrator. Knox G. G. Reversed
Mitchell, J.-Suit by the administrator of one
Burway, to set aside conveyance by one Tay-
lor to his wife, and subject it to the lien of
judgment in favor of the estate. The evidence
shows that the property was bought with the
wife's money and although the husband took
the title in his name, he paid none Of the pur-
chase price. He secured loan on the lot, and
mortgage was given by him and his wife to Sc
cure his note. The proceeds OF the loan went to
building house on the lot and he paid nothing
on that The conveyance to the wife was
not without consideration and voluntary,
was s.a hsns H. FrnaS
ulentiy conveyed is exempt by law before
as it is after such conveyance, deed made
with the intention of vesting the title irrecalm-
ably in another, even though it be voluntary, is
not fraudulent as to creditors. (3 Evidence re-
lating to the business transactions between the
husband and wife in such conveyance, is not
within the prohibition of Section 493 that par
ty interested cannot testify to matters that oc-
Cured during the lifetime of the decedent, and
it was admissible. The decedent was a stranger
to the transaction. Such transaction was not
the subject-matter of the action. 1t arose on the
| evidence merely. and was only brought collater-
ally in question.
STREET Observation-Disclosures
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
12413 Charlotte Taber vs.. John Ferguson.
Allen G. &. Affirmed Elliott, G. J.-Validity
of street assessment in question. The transcript
required by Section 3165 is not complaint in
| the just of the term. The clerk is only
| required TO certify to such papers as are filed
| The failure to set forth proof of notice In the
| transcript does not render it bad on demurrer
| where the transcript afirmatively shows that
mo- icnv civ ha 1o M n
| his defense, although no proof of notice is set
| FORTH and the contractor is permitted to reply.
The contract was assigned. The acceptance by
| the council of the affidavit of appellee as
| signed, and its action thereon, amounted to a
| ratification of the assignment, and was equiva-
lent to a precedent authority.
| STREET IMPRovEMENT-REsoLUTI EN-
GINEER
| 1907 Charlotte Tabor vs. Christian Grof
| miller. Allen c. G. Affirmed. Elliott, IA
| resolution by a common council which provided
| that the street improvements shall be of a
| designated character. without specifying with
Particularly of detail what it shall be- is suffi
| cent The fact that DO plans or specifications
| were on file in the Office of the city engineer
| when the resolution was adopted did not vitiate
! the resolution. 1t will be presumed the plans
| were prepared for proper bids. The law devolves
this duty on the engineer. aud it is not the duty
| OF the Council to prepare plans. The resolution
| snecifving that the pavement should be of brick
is sufficiently certain. Land within city limits
| used for agricultural purposes is subject to
| street assessments.
| DRAINAGE-CoMPLAINT-
1886. Aquilla Loverty State ex rel. Sam
uel D. Hill. Vermillion c. c. Affirmed Howk,
| IA complaint tor the collection of drainage
assessments which shows that some notice was
given of the filing of the petition, the fling of
the petition, the report of the commissioners
of the benefits and damages assessed, that such
report was approved and confirmed by the court,
and which sets out copy of the assessment
against the defendant, is good when first at
tackled in the Supreme Court. t2) Questions
nal proceedings for the establishment and con
struetion of the ditch should be tried by the
court without a jury. (R. S., 4276.) This pro
ceeding is within the spirit of that statute, and
is triable by the court
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
1905. Zachariah T. McKinsey VS.. Robert B
Mckee. Clinton G. e. Affirmed Collars, j.
In the bill Of exceptions is the following state
ment The court gave to the jury the follow
ing Instructions, to. wit" The instructions are
set out, then following is this: Defendant by
his attorneys asks the court to instruct the jury
in writing and to give the following Instructions
Here follows instructions asked At the end il
the date and the signature of the judge Tbs
instructions are thus attempted to be brought
5 into the record by bill. The bill then sho uld
reclte statement made by the court, authenti
, Gated by the judge. Refused and excepted tt
. at the time by defendant" signed by counsel a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF EXCEPTIONS
; 1894. l., B. & w. Railway Company vs.
D Stebbin Quick. Clinton c. g. Reversed. Nib
!. lack, J.-Railway companies are not required t.
fence their tracks at stations and sidings whert
: freight or passengers are received and dis
charged, and are not liable to pay for cattle O
other animals which may wander on the track a
such places and be killed. without negligence OF
4 the part of such companies. Thi
u doctrine is applicable to the facts of thi
! case ~ The long hand report Of evidenc
> written out by a shorthand reporter is, unde
2 Section 1910, An original manuscript or documen
i | incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Origina
: papers read in evidence, and accompanying an
properly identified by such long hand report
may be treated in this court embraced With
and constituting part of it. The original paper
as exhibits are consequently in the bill.
60 1898. Alexander Harper ct al. VS.. State e
. eel Jones. Montgomery c. c. Dismissed.
r 1929 Charles Papa VS.. Lewis A. Wright
s Allen S. c. Certiorari issued.